Version. 0.1
Date. 2026-08-06
Author. Claude.ai (drafting session). Operator: Marvin Percival.
Grounding. The read-only audit of 2026-08-06, which found the rule stated independently in two lineages with no canonical locus and cited in roughly fifteen further documents.
Companion to. standing-notes/loomworks-standing-note-demonstrating-companion-answers-v0_1 — the canonical statement, which this amendment points both lineages at.
What this does. Neither statement is deleted. Each is marked as superseded-in-authority, its wording preserved, with a pointer to the standing note. The rule itself is lifted in the standing note, not here.
What this deliberately does not do. It does not touch the roughly fifteen documents that cite the rule. They cite it; they do not state it, so they carry no wording that can go stale. Amending them would recreate the problem at greater scale.
Target: the highest present version of verticals/venture-diligence/loomworks-vertical-venture-capital-diligence. The audit reports v0.4. [EXECUTING SESSION: confirm the highest version present before editing; do not assume v0.4.]
Bump it and replace the rule's sentence — the audit quotes it as:
> Unchanged, restated because it governs conduct: no live recall demonstration in front of a firm until the filed retrieval work lands (queued-directions §18.2, priority raised with the inspection evidence).
With:
> The rule governing live demonstration of the Companion's answers is stated at standing-notes/loomworks-standing-note-demonstrating-companion-answers, which is its canonical home. It is not restated here, because it is product-wide and this document is one vertical's. It has since been partly lifted, on 2026-08-06, following B-11's landing.
>
> (Preserved, the position this document carried from v0.2 through v0.4: "no live recall demonstration in front of a firm until the filed retrieval work lands (queued-directions §18.2, priority raised with the inspection evidence)." That was correct when written and is superseded in authority rather than in substance — the standing note carries both the reasoning and the current form.)
[EXECUTING SESSION: quote the sentence as it actually stands in the highest version before replacing it. The audit's quotation is from a report, not from a read of that file, and this amendment inherits that. If the wording differs, replace what is there and say what it was.]
Add to the version block:
> Amendment note. The no-live-recall-demonstration rule is no longer stated here. It is product-wide — this document's own earlier wording says every vertical inherits it — and stating a product-wide rule inside one vertical's document is what gave it two independent formulations. Its canonical home is now standing-notes/loomworks-standing-note-demonstrating-companion-answers, where it has also been partly lifted. The prior wording is preserved above. Nothing else in this document changes.
Target: the highest present manifest. The audit reports v0.78, with the §5 entry byte-identical since v0.75. [EXECUTING SESSION: confirm the highest present before doing anything.]
File this as a manifest amendment beside it, following the pattern of the existing current-status-manifest-v0_73-amendment-v0_1 and -v0_76-amendment-v0_1 — not as a manifest version bump. The entry is absorbed at the manifest's next bump.
Amendment content, to be filed as current-status-manifest-v0_78-amendment-v0_2 or the next free amendment number:
> §5 — the no-live-recall-demonstration rule is superseded in authority and partly lifted.
>
> The entry as it stands — carried unchanged from v0.75 through v0.78 — states the rule in its own words, independently of a second statement in the venture-diligence vertical lineage. Neither pointed at the other. An audit on 2026-08-06 found around fifteen further documents citing the rule, most of them pointing at a queued-directions section that reports it and never originated it.
>
> The rule now has one canonical home: standing-notes/loomworks-standing-note-demonstrating-companion-answers.
>
> And it is partly lifted, by Operator decision of 2026-08-06. Live demonstration is permitted for an engagement holding fewer notes than the retrieval window — which a measurement the same day established is every engagement anyone actually works in. It remains barred above the window, and for the universal commons regardless of size. The reasoning, and what changed when B-11 landed, are in the standing note.
>
> The §5 entry's wording stands as written and is superseded in authority rather than in substance. At the manifest's next bump, §5 should carry a pointer rather than a statement.
Every document that cites the rule. Around fifteen of them, across investigations, scoping notes, inspection briefs, session handoffs, competitive positioning and the plain-English vertical. They carry no wording of their own — they name the rule and point at something. Once the standing note exists, they point at the right thing by pointing at the rule at all.
queued-directions §18.2. Nearly every citing document treats it as the source and it is not — it reports the rule and attributes it to the vertical documents. That attribution is now wrong in a harmless way: it points at a lineage that points onward. Correctable at its next bump; not worth a version now.
The plain-English vertical document's paraphrase. We do not demonstrate recall in front of you — written for a different audience, and it will need updating when someone next revises that document, because the rule it paraphrases has changed. Flagged, not corrected: it is customer-facing prose and its revision is the Operator's rather than a session's.
no-live-recall and no live recall and confirm the count outside the two lineages and the standing note is unchanged.DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida Loomworks — retiring the two statements of the recall-demonstration rule — amendment instructions — v0.1 — 2026-08-06 Fifteen documents cite it. Two state it. Neither knew about the other.